Tuesday, November 20, 2007

MCCLELLAN RATS OUT BUSH AND CHENEY--WHY NO IMPEACHMENT?

Scott McClellan has a book coming out in April 2008. But we have been treated to a very, very juicy tidbit, just in time for a tasty Thanksgiving political discussion with the conservative family members:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.

"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."


Holy articles of impeachment, Batman!! This is big! How can Pelosi continue to spit in Kucinich's face given evidence like this? How can she continue to spit in my face and your face? Or, as put it on the Hattiesburg American forum today:

"There is NO REASON to not impeach Bush and Cheney, and everyone knows it. Bush and Cheney both have record disapproval numbers. There is nothing to be gained politically by protecting them and vice versa. A huge majority of the country and the military wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

What then is the source of the Democrats' inaction on impeachment? Is it:

1. The warrantless wiretapping gave the Bushies some dirt on Pelosi and Reid
2. As Nader pointed out, Congress has been warned that martial law will be enacted if impeachment proceedings begin
3. The Democrats are in on the swindle and stand to profit as much from martial law and endless war as the Republicans

Not that the reason really matters--it's still an awful situation.

Put impeachment on the table!!"


Kucinich/Paul '08! Paul/Kucinich '08!

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kucinich announced his support of a NH State proclamation calling on the House to impeach the President. If that doesn't work, when might Kucinich support a state proclamation calling on the House to remove Pelosi as Speaker, and clear the way for impeachment? ( More )

ryanshaunkelly said...

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

Freshmao said...

Hey Clinton,

Back when Bill Clinton committed perjury and was attempted to be impeached the US Senate went into a closed session without public hearing and came out against the impeachment. I've always wondered what went on behind those closed doors of the US Senate, because the momentum was going in favor of a successful impeachment until the US Senate went into that closed session. I have always suspected the Republicans and the Democrats made some sort of a private deal in order to stop the impeachment of Bill Clinton. One of the deals I suspect was that the Democrats if they got into power again would not mount a real impeachment against a Republican President. This is just my own musings and not anything to consider fact. I just find it irresponsible and shady to not publicly discuss the charges of impeachment against any government official.

In any case, perjury is only a crime if done under oath, so the President could only be accused of lying at best, but no crime. Furthermore, there was no crime committed in the first place since Valiere Plame was not a active field spy when her career was leaked and leaked not just by the White House.